4 ms·

The moderators of Reddit take bribes.

zacharycohn 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the competition aspect has nothing to do with it. The moderators are unpaid volunteers, and Conde Naste has historically been incredibly hands off.
- diogenescynic 13y ago
  The way the moderators leverage their position is by blocking content, not promoting it. If you hang around Reddit for long enough you'll see the moderators are the weakpoint as they can arbitrarily remove a story that most users are engaging in and make up an arbirary reason for it. There should be some kind of process the moderators have to go through or at least be voted in.
  - zacharycohn 13y ago
    That is true if you want to maintain the direction the subreddit is going. But democracy doesn't work when the masses don't know what's best for them. I believe that nevitably, without strong leadership, a subreddit (or insert any other internet community) will fall to image macros, memes, and internet raging. And that's because the masses upvote that content. But maybe an appointed moderator is what the subreddit needs, even if that mod isn't what it deserves.
MRSallee 13y ago
Evidence?
volune 13y ago
Reddit was spun off from Conde Nast quite a while ago and is a individual company. So not only are you making claims without evidence, they are plainly false.
- diogenescynic 13y ago
  You're right, I didn't realize they became independent. I removed that sentence. Although I don't have any proof, there are dozens of incidents/stories I've seen removed that make me suspicious of the moderators and the justifications given rarely seemed sincere or rational. Is it really so hard for you to believe someone would use a position of authority for their own personal gain?
meepmorp 13y ago
> The moderators of Reddit take bribes. Provide evidence for this assertion. > Also, Reddit is owned by Conde Nast and most of those sites blocked are competitors to Conde Naste's publications. Conflict of interest. Reddit is not own by Conde Nast. It was spun off into an independent entity in 2012.
- diogenescynic 13y ago
  "Independent" >Reddit, Inc. remains wholly owned by Advance Media, Condé Nast’s parent company, and the board will include Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, Condé Nast’s president Bob Sauerberg and its CTO Joe Simon. http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/reddit-spun-out/ http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/reddit-spun-out/ Have you spent much time on Reddit? There are lots of stories removed and the justifications given are rather weak. It's either personal politics or they're taking bribes. Whatever it is, the moderators are abusing their authority which I don't seem to recall anyone agreeing to. It's a poor system where one moderator can shut out the voices of thousands of users.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    But: http://blog.reddit.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html#independent-reddit-inc http://blog.reddit.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html#in... > Then in 2012, reddit was spun out into a re-incorporated independent entity with its own board and control of its own finances, hiring a new CEO and bringing back co-founder Alexis Ohanian to serve on the board. And from just below that: > reddit has 3 sets of shareholders: The largest shareholder is still Advance Publications. The second-largest set of shareholders are reddit employees. In the spin-out that occurred in early 2012, Advance voluntarily reduced its sole ownership to that of a partial owner in order to put ownership in the hands of current and future employees. So, not sole ownership by Conde Nast or it's parent corporation, and an independent board and management. Now: > There are lots of stories removed and the justifications given are rather weak. It's either personal politics or they're taking bribes. Or the stories are shitty and people refuse to acknowledge that fact. Or maybe just politics. Or some reasons neither you nor I have managed to figure out. Which is why I asked for evidence of an assertion that there's bribery going on, because it's not obvious that's what's going on to a non-conspiratorially minded person. > Whatever it is, the moderators are abusing their authority which I don't seem to recall anyone agreeing to. It's a privately run website. You agree to the moderation system by deciding to use reddit. If you don't like how the company chooses to manage things (i.e., through moderators) then stop using reddit.

I'm pretty sure the competition aspect has nothing to do with it. The moderators are unpaid volunteers, and Conde Naste has historically been incredibly hands off.

diogenescynic 13y ago
The way the moderators leverage their position is by blocking content, not promoting it. If you hang around Reddit for long enough you'll see the moderators are the weakpoint as they can arbitrarily remove a story that most users are engaging in and make up an arbirary reason for it. There should be some kind of process the moderators have to go through or at least be voted in.
- zacharycohn 13y ago
  That is true if you want to maintain the direction the subreddit is going. But democracy doesn't work when the masses don't know what's best for them. I believe that nevitably, without strong leadership, a subreddit (or insert any other internet community) will fall to image macros, memes, and internet raging. And that's because the masses upvote that content. But maybe an appointed moderator is what the subreddit needs, even if that mod isn't what it deserves.

MRSallee 13y ago

Evidence?

volune 13y ago

Reddit was spun off from Conde Nast quite a while ago and is a individual company. So not only are you making claims without evidence, they are plainly false.

diogenescynic 13y ago
You're right, I didn't realize they became independent. I removed that sentence. Although I don't have any proof, there are dozens of incidents/stories I've seen removed that make me suspicious of the moderators and the justifications given rarely seemed sincere or rational. Is it really so hard for you to believe someone would use a position of authority for their own personal gain?

meepmorp 13y ago

> The moderators of Reddit take bribes. Provide evidence for this assertion. > Also, Reddit is owned by Conde Nast and most of those sites blocked are competitors to Conde Naste's publications. Conflict of interest. Reddit is not own by Conde Nast. It was spun off into an independent entity in 2012.

diogenescynic 13y ago
"Independent" >Reddit, Inc. remains wholly owned by Advance Media, Condé Nast’s parent company, and the board will include Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, Condé Nast’s president Bob Sauerberg and its CTO Joe Simon. http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/reddit-spun-out/ http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/reddit-spun-out/ Have you spent much time on Reddit? There are lots of stories removed and the justifications given are rather weak. It's either personal politics or they're taking bribes. Whatever it is, the moderators are abusing their authority which I don't seem to recall anyone agreeing to. It's a poor system where one moderator can shut out the voices of thousands of users.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- meepmorp 13y ago
  But: http://blog.reddit.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html#independent-reddit-inc http://blog.reddit.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html#in... > Then in 2012, reddit was spun out into a re-incorporated independent entity with its own board and control of its own finances, hiring a new CEO and bringing back co-founder Alexis Ohanian to serve on the board. And from just below that: > reddit has 3 sets of shareholders: The largest shareholder is still Advance Publications. The second-largest set of shareholders are reddit employees. In the spin-out that occurred in early 2012, Advance voluntarily reduced its sole ownership to that of a partial owner in order to put ownership in the hands of current and future employees. So, not sole ownership by Conde Nast or it's parent corporation, and an independent board and management. Now: > There are lots of stories removed and the justifications given are rather weak. It's either personal politics or they're taking bribes. Or the stories are shitty and people refuse to acknowledge that fact. Or maybe just politics. Or some reasons neither you nor I have managed to figure out. Which is why I asked for evidence of an assertion that there's bribery going on, because it's not obvious that's what's going on to a non-conspiratorially minded person. > Whatever it is, the moderators are abusing their authority which I don't seem to recall anyone agreeing to. It's a privately run website. You agree to the moderation system by deciding to use reddit. If you don't like how the company chooses to manage things (i.e., through moderators) then stop using reddit.